Hacker News Reader

What is Typescript providing that you don't get by writing 1 test that checks type and by following modern ECMAScript specs? Does that justify a new syntax? The answer I think is no. I see much praise in this thread, but very little definition of why that praise is merited.

View on HN

> writing 1 test that checks type

If you enjoy being a human type checker, no-one in stopping you.

Tests don't cover everything and just on input and result. All the code in the middle can still have bugs that are uncaught because you don't have the right test for it.

Type systems provide a lot of safety with less work, meaning less bugs and more productivity. Just having the definitions available when writing makes you go faster.

> Type systems provide a lot of safety with less work, meaning less bugs and more productivity

I hear this argument all the time. As well as the opposite: type systems slow you down and only catch easy-to-find bugs. Would love to see a real study that quantifies productivity among static and dynamic systems and ends this flame-war once and for all.

I dont think there are formal studies but there are quite a few discussions, this one on SE is good: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/5960...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com